Asymmetrical Information

That would be reasonable, had you mentioned the many cases of much more direct political influence in churches not being looked at.

I'll wait for the update, hm?

Jane Galt wrote:

Nonetheless, the IRS has to investigate these things when it gets a complaint, and investigate it has, ...

Is this really true? Is the IRS actually required by law or regulation to investigate any complaint?

I've heard many such assertions over the years, and about many government agencies from the local constabulary to federal agencies. But I've never seen any statute or regulation to back it up.

If it were true, then as you indicated any "sourpuss who's pissed off at the minister" could "get even by putting the IRS on his tail."

That's why I doubt it is true.

Oh, forgot to mention. I am a churchgoer. At an evil Unitarian church, sure. I'm personally a technical agnostic. I like the community. (Can't afford more than a 5% tithe, but I do what I can for my community.)

In any case, I think you can agree that the message is pretty clear: give your membership rosters to the GOP? That's OK. Preach the wrong sermon? Hm, have to look in to this...

Oh, I forgot. This isn't about sending a message. This is about process.

I guess I'm sensitive, being a (socially) liberal churchgoer.

Jane, as a tax lawyer, you're a really excellent economist. I'm a long way from being convinced that there's anything untoward going on--I've seen some indication that this is part of a broader IRS effort to back churches in general away from being as blatantly political as some on both sides have gotten--but this is a significant change from what the IRS had been doing. The line between legitimate sermonizing and impermissible electioneering is also quite a bit trickier than your rather breezy "big no-no" suggests.

While I'm at it, though, I should say that you've been doing a lot of good work lately. I think I like you better in odd-numbered years. ;-)

The IRS has been doing this for a long time.

"A church that ran "Christian Beware" ads in USA Today and the Washington Times, warning that "Bill Clinton is promoting policies that are in rebellion to God's laws," lost its tax-exempt status this spring.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman's decision upheld the IRS revocation of tax exemption for the Church at Pierce Cree, near Binghamton, NY, which ran anti-Clinton ads in Oct. 30, 1992, four days before the election. The ads, which also accused Clinton of supporting "the homosexual lifestyle," solicited tax-deductible donations to help pay for the ads."

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1999/May99/scbulletin.html

Repeat after me: McCain-Feingold.

Hershblogger - You MUST have the facts wrong! That church was opposing a democrat (a/k/a pro-republican), and we all know the IRS is out to screw the left. It can't be that the IRS is going after both the left and the right, can it?

Jane writes: Churches and other non-profits, as you know, are not supposed to engage in political activity. If they do, they lose their tax-exempt status.

Can someone in the know tell the rest of us exactly what is meant by "tax-exempt status"? I've often wondered. If they lost this status, would they have to pay federal income tax? As an organization that doesn't make a profit, what would they be taxed on? Wouldn't they simply make sure they spend any excess to insure they don't run a profit (and therefore incur tax liability)? They couldn't be taxed on revenue, could they? And local property or sales taxes aren't a matter for the IRS anyways, right? I would assume one would no longer be able to deduct contributions to an organization shorn of its tax-exempt status, but is that the only thing at play here?

You are a little off on the political views of the congregants at the average liberal church. There are a considerable of married men who go to church because it's good for the kids, and whose political views are the standard right-of-center views held by married American men. Their wives choose the church, and they regard the pastor, and most of the church ladies, as childlike idiots who couldn't hold a job in the real world.

This doesn't perhaps refute your larger point, since such men aren't listening much to the pastor, and assuredly aren't going to be influenced in their voting by the babble from the pulit.

I went to a wedding at that church recently. Lovely place.

Just thought you'd all like to know.

But it is well known, for whatever it's worth, in the Pasadena area for being rather activist in its adherence to politcal philosophies in line with the likes of Barbara Lee.

While some congregants may be Pasadena's old money, based on the All Saints attendees I've ever known Regas would have gotten about zero dissent.

One of my ancestors was a back-country circuit riding preacher, who died of pneumonia contracted while ridiing through a storm to preach against Lincoln's reelection. This only reinforces my opinion that ministers should stay out of politics, because the good ones are too unworldly to make sensible decisions in that realm.

However, the real issue here is that IRS regulations do place restrictions on what churches can preach. IIRC, there's a specific ban on preaching against taxes. This certainly sounds like it violates both the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech parts of the First Amendment.

In liberal communities (and I live in one) glorification and evangelization for homosexuality has become a religion.

This is no longer about tolerance. It's about trying to convince more people to become homosexual. Really. In the liberal driven media and in liberal communities, heterosexuality is constantly depicted as boring, unfashionable and oppressive.

The reasons for this are numerous and baffling. Try to convince me otherwise. I live in the middle of it. The notion that gays are victims of any sort of discrimination is laughable. For those of you who are younger, I want to tell you that the intellectual liberal society has been pushing this agenda for my entire life (56 years). The glamorization of homosexuality is the agenda of the academic and corporate world.

Gays have been the teacher's pets of the academic and corporate world for my entire life.

I am constantly amazed at those who think that this agenda is rebellious. It isn't.

Why do we want to make a religion out of homosexuality?

Stephen-

As a heterosexual, conservative male I have to say....
.........What the Hell does that have to do with anything? Unless homosexual groups are getting tax-exemption based upon phalus worship, I think you may have the wrong thread. Interesting rant though

"Can someone in the know tell the rest of us exactly what is meant by "tax-exempt status"? I've often wondered. If they lost this status, would they have to pay federal income tax? As an organization that doesn't make a profit, what would they be taxed on? Wouldn't they simply make sure they spend any excess to insure they don't run a profit (and therefore incur tax liability)? They couldn't be taxed on revenue, could they? And local property or sales taxes aren't a matter for the IRS anyways, right? I would assume one would no longer be able to deduct contributions to an organization shorn of its tax-exempt status, but is that the only thing at play here?" -- P.B. Almeida

Yes, P.B., for the most part, that's the only thing at play here. However, the lack of the deduction may be a SIGNIFICANT hinderance in raising money for the organization. So, it's not considered a small thing by most tax-exempts.

The obssession of that church is gay marriage.

That's what it has to do with this post.

Stephen, and your obsession would be...?

Well, Brittain33, I've already stated it.

Why has the dominant, authoritarian culture (academia and the corporate world) decided to evangelize endlessly for homosexuality? I already stated that it has done this my entire life.

Why the continuing pretense that this is some sort of rebellion against established authority, instead of the dictate of authority?

At least that Church's statements were not as eggegious as Some Detroit Church's statmeents in the recent Detroit Mayoral Election:

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/mayor10e_20051110.htm

At Great Faith Ministries International on Sunday, Bishop Wayne T. Jackson told his congregation the mayor needed a second term.

"I believe that God put this man upon us, not just to start, but to finish," he said.
. . .
The Rev. Wendell Anthony of Fellowship Chapel used Parks' death to rally support for Kilpatrick last Sunday.

"If you stood in line for Rosa Parks, you can stand in line for Kwame Kilpatrick," he said. "The two go together."

This is not atypical of Detroit Black Churches' consistent support and electioneering for Democrat candidates.

Where is the ACLU with the separation of Church and State again? Where is the IRS investigation of these blatant politicking in church?

Stephen, you're very skilled at appropriating strange and overpowered language for uses it's not intended. I'll call on you the next time a horde of beseeching harpies assaults me with requests to buy their girl scout cookies.

In the meantime, buy a dictionary and start with "authoritarian."

If they pulled the tax exempt status of all the churches making political endorsements there wouldn't be too many left with tax exempt status. which come to think of it may not be such a bad idea.

Yes, P.B., for the most part, that's the only thing at play here. However, the lack of the deduction may be a SIGNIFICANT hinderance in raising money for the organization. So, it's not considered a small thing by most tax-exempts.

David Walser: Thanks.

Well, no, Brittain, I'm just very good at cutting through the crap.

It's an astonishing thought, isn't it? The endless promotion of the gay life isn't a rebellion... it isn't a rejection of authority... it isn't outlaw. In fact, gay is what the academic and corporate world wants you to be.

It's total conformity to the dictates of the authoritarian society. What's astonishing about this is... you've been had. I think that the world "authoritarian" does apply to the universe of academia and the corporate world. They assign the grades and write the paychecks.

The modern world of marketing is replete with this contradiction. Pretend rebellion is probably the most effective tool to use in selling to the young.

I for one welcome our newly gay overlords:).

Stephen, methinks thee doth protesteth to much...

Why has the dominant, authoritarian culture (academia and the corporate world) decided to evangelize endlessly for homosexuality? I already stated that it has done this my entire life.

Why, you're right -- having lived in San Francisco for 10 years and now Brooklyn for 4, I hadn't noticed. The (pink) jackboots do keep grinding us straights down relentlessly. And they campaign to replace fact with their handwaving dogma (Kansas) while passing laws to enfaggonate us all (Texas).

And that relentlessly gloryhole ridden supreme court is so pro-buggery that, well, I wouldn't want to clerk there. No wonder Roberts smiles so much.

Stephen is right. The only thing missing in his argument is that as homosexuality becomes more normalized, actual gay people don't need to ride on the coattails of authoritarian power structures seeking to destroy marriage and the family anymore. There are plenty of gay conservatives who recognize what's going on and recognize how corrosive it is to exactly the kind of culture that permits sexual minorities to exist unmolested. The specific kind of corporate socialism that the powerful interests he describes are trying to impose does not produce people who can resist, oh, say, what is going on in France. Therefore it is in the real interests of gay people to oppose them.

Ironic that liberal groups are up in arms about this. I wonder if they're the same folks who threatened to send observers to evangelical churches in the Midwest before last year's election to ensure there was no pro-Bush politicking going on and to report them to the IRS if there was. Not that the inconsistency would surprise me. (I personally believe non-profits should have the same free speech rights as any other entity: this story-as well as the story related in the comments-illustrate why these laws are so pernicious: the discretion given the IRS will inevitably result in selective prosecution based on the party in power.)

Stephen and Common Reader = closeted gays.

Maybe you guys should get together?

fyi, the Catholic church was blatantly pro-Bush last year. A sermon delivered (by a deacon, not a priest) at a Mass in Massachusetts included the insistence that a Catholic couldn't vote for a pro-choice candidate. My mother in law attended a mass in South Dakota where the priest told the parish that a Catholic shouldn't vote for a Democrat.

I would LOVE it if all churches, including all the right wing and both left wing were denied tax exempt status. Religion should be eradicated from politics entirely.

However, the real issue here is that IRS regulations do place restrictions on what churches can preach. IIRC, there's a specific ban on preaching against taxes. This certainly sounds like it violates both the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech parts of the First Amendment

What violates the first amendment, here, is that religions are given special tax status in the first place. Any religion which wants to be able to speak as it pleases can do so -- it just has to give up its special tax breaks.

Stephen's ranting a bit, but he also spoke untruthfully.
Gays are very much discrimminated against. They can't marry in most of the country and they can't serve in the armed forces.

Stephen and Common Reader = closeted gays.

Maybe you guys should get together?

Since I'm female that would not be very gay, unless this particular Stephen is the protaganist of The Well of Loneliness.

Count me in as wondering whether this tax-exempt business is worth the complexity. It *sort of* sounds nice to give charity-ish groups some advantage (although, doesn't *anything* about charity-ish groups *sound* nice, just like anything about the environment or the oppressed or children or elderly or lots of other groups? But I digress).

But to implement the nice-sounding requirements requires the tax forms to get more complicated and -- most disturbing of all -- requires that the IRS keeps a close eye on people to make sure they are actually conforming. This leads to all sorts of nastiness: invasion of privacy, growth of the agency, and selective enforcement -- which in turn means that you really can decide to sick the IRS on people you don't like and hold that over them as blackmail.

It doesn't seem like a very good deal to me when you look at the implementation that's required.

On top of that, though, what exactly is a church that doesn't push ideas on people? Isn't that a significant chunk of what they do -- guide people in what to believe??

Umm, guys you're speaking like every church is a little clapboard shack with 40 parishoners. Not so much. How much do you think the property taxes on St. Patrick's Cathedral (Downtown Manhattan) would be were it not tax exempt? How about the First Church (Unitarian) in Boston? Not even talking about the donations, mind you. The various and sundry churches own a lot of land, camps, schools and etc. Religion is a big business in this country and it's all tax free.

Dan: "What violates the first amendment, here, is that religions are given special tax status in the first place." I tend to agree, but wasn't going to bring it up because it's a whole other issue.

The biggest problem with making churches tax-exempt is that it puts a government agency in the position of determining what is a "religion" and what isn't. Could I claim that my house is the First Church of Secular Humanism and stop paying property taxes? Maybe that's abusive, but how about my next door neighbor, who was ordained by some Christian church, conducts services on Sunday morning in his living room, and isn't paying taxes?

OTOH, I can see a simpler solution for the political advocacy issue - allow non-profit organizations to do it, and even allow purely political organizations to claim non-profit status.

This is nothig new. I can't remember an election cycle that didn't include almost every Democrat candidate parading up in front of as many black churches in town as they could. This largely goes on with barely a wink and nod, secure in their ability to righteously portray any criticism as "racist."

This is nothig new. I can't remember an election cycle that didn't include almost every Democrat candidate parading up in front of as many black churches in town as they could. This largely goes on with barely a wink and nod, secure in their ability to righteously portray any criticism as "racist."

K-rect! I went down this long list of posts, waiting to see if someone would mention that black churches egregiously shill for Democrat candidates. This whitebread Episscopalian church in question -- it's obviously the target of a form of reverse discrimination. The black churches are the heavy offenders, but the IRS, because of les politiques correctments, is compelled to make an example of a white church.

...

Why has the dominant, authoritarian culture (academia and the corporate world) decided to evangelize endlessly for homosexuality?

One of the classical Roman distinctions { Roman res publica, not Imperium ) between patricians and plebians was that plebians lacked multigenerational family ties to carry on the family's political and business interests, whereas patricians had political and business concerns that extended over more than one generation -- and the sons who would perpetuate their family's interests against the state and against other families.

I can't remember the Latin phrase any more, but the translation is, "Plebs have no clan," translating "gens" as "clan."

... Plebians: atomized, rootless, urban nobodies ... just the right kind of consumers for a decadent regime of panem et circenses.

Academia and the corporate world want plebians to rule over.

This is also something to think about when comparing the 21st century Western world to Islam.

"Plebs non gentum habet"? I simply can't remember.

I seem to remember Al Gore sermonizing before the 2000 election, quite a few times.

Comments are Closed.